I think the way to improve purchasing of music whether it be physical or digital is to price it better. 7"s should never be more then $5 if its a new band unless it comes with something nice/fancy or is a repress of an older band. LP's shouldn't be more the 16 or so for newer bands as well. CD's should be a lot cheaper. Paying more then $9 for a CD is painful unless it is rare/out-of-print or is a double CD. Digital albums should be either free or within the $2-5 range. If things were priced better more people would buy them because they can actually afford them. I'd actually pay for online music if I felt it was priced right. Paying more then $6 for digital music is a load of garbage since most times you can get it free.

It's very annoying seeing the amount of labels remastering albums when they really don't need to be remastered. I don't know if that affects teh cost of an album (im sure it does) but unless there is something that needed to be changed albums shouldnt be remastered multiple times for the sake of remastering.

Of course, the real way to reduce piracy is to go after actual pirates, and the businesses that support them. Not, for example, by harassing little girls. But that's hard, so don't expect that. It's easier to just send thugs to frighten people.

Fashion designers go after distributors of fake goods all the time. Do they waste their resources attacking women who buy handbags with fake labels sewn on? No they do not. They nail the stores that sell them, the distributors that circulate them, and every once in a while the manufacturers. Possessing fake goods with no intent to sell is not even an offense.

Manufactuers, distributors, and retailers of fake CDs, DVDs, software, and games need to be taken to task just like this. Every sale of a fake item represents a real loss to the copyright holder, which file sharing does not.

Every sale of a fake item represents a real loss to the copyright holder, which file sharing does not.

Arguably so. If in the case of filesharers the argument to justify that their actions do not represent a real loss to the copyright holder is that they wouldn't necessarily buy what they download if they couldn't download it, why can't it be for buyers of fake physical items that they wouldn't necessarily buy the real deal if they couldn't buy the fake? And if it is the act of buying that makes the difference, what about those that have premium accounts on sites like the now defunct Megaupload, or paid private torrent trackers and so on? To all effects, that is the same as buying what you download.

I see a distinct difference. A purchase of a physical item is a real financial transaction. It is an undisputable willingness to exchange money for an item. The core issue with physical counterfeit items is not the size or even existence of the financial transaction, but the receiver of the payment. In any case, mimicing the price point is often part of the counterfeit, since people are instantly suspicious of el cheapo deals.

The case against Megaupload is that they allegedly play the part of the counterfeit distributor. They do not sell counterfeit items, they sell what is essentially warehouse space. Since a small percentage of their warehouse space is used to house copyright infringing stuff, and since users can pay Megaupload to get more space and therefore store more hypothetical copyright infringing stuff, Megaupload is a diabolical organization dedicated to piracy.

How to? Simple. Remove music from the equation. Set up some fascist-as-fuck government that shoots anyone who downloads anything from the Internet. But what's stopping you from recording stuff from radio? Destroy all radios. But what about taping concerts? Destroy video cameras and to hell with live concerts. Do things the 18th century way. Otherwise, there's really no way.

How to? Simple. Remove music from the equation. Set up some fascist-as-fuck government that shoots anyone who downloads anything from the Internet. But what's stopping you from recording stuff from radio? Destroy all radios. But what about taping concerts? Destroy video cameras and to hell with live concerts. Do things the 18th century way. Otherwise, there's really no way.

Check this out. It turns out people will pay to support creators even when free is an option.

While they weren't free, on black friday weekend, I bought 5 ebooks for $5. 3 of them were new authors and got them for the price. If a digital album had the same type of price as an ebook, I guarantee sales would be huge. I would buy a lot more music if it was, at the most, $5. Ive actually bought more books than music this year.

The reason why I download all my music is because I have more important things to spend my money on, like food.

Then you shouldn't be allowed to get the music you seek. You are not entitled to that music. If you are too poor to afford it, get in a better circumstance to be able to afford it. That's like stealing a car because you want to visit your girlfriend but you don't have the money to pay for a car, gas, or a cab. fuck you

If you're truly concerned about money, a pirate and a lost customer who "goes without" look exactly the same. Being sanctimonious accomplishes nothing.

You know, most musicians spend way too much money as it is, on their instruments, on equipment, on renting a rehearsal, recording and yet some douche bags think they are entitled to their work for free!

I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if this has been posted before.

You know, most musicians spend way too much money as it is, on their instruments, on equipment, on renting a rehearsal, recording and yet some douche bags think they are entitled to their work for free!

I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if this has been posted before.

Also, that article you posted is chock full of fallacies. First of all, copying is not stealing. If you steal a CD off the store shelf, then that CD truly is gone. However, when you download an mp3, the CD is still there. Secondly, piracy is not a legal problem, it's a business model problem. Bands like The Project Hate still insist that CDs are the only true way to listen to music, but we don't live in that world anymore. We now live in a world of abundance, where things are no longer scarce. It makes more sense to distribute your work digitally be it through iTunes, Bandcamp, or many other venues. Sure, there will be a few people who will want free stuff no matter what, but have you ever considered that most people who pirate music either can't afford it or live in a place where there are no legal options? Third, obscurity is a far bigger problem than piracy. Even if people were buying CDs for $10,000 each, if no one has heard of you, you're not gonna be making any money. However, if someone pirates your work and they enjoy it, they'll be much more inclined to buy physical albums and merch. They'll also tell their friends how great your music is and they will also be inclined to buy CDs and merch. The Project Hate maybe surprised to discover that some of their fans only became fans because they pirated the music first.

You don't steal a bus or the subway, but you can sneak on anyway. Isn't that illegal? This is the same thing, you're basically stealing something that isn't a physical object, but more of a service.

I as a musician I don't owe it to you, or to anyone else to share the music I've spent hours, weeks, months on writing, arranging, recording and finally producing it to give it away for free.

You can try to justify this how much you want, the fact still remains. If you're not ready to pay for it in the first place, then you're never going to ever. There are exceptions of course, but they are just exactly that. Exceptions.

Mind you, I have tons of stuff that I give away for free. I will even send a physical copy for the price of the shipping cost and to cover my own expenses (tapes, cd-r's, prints). Or you can just download it for free.

Just check the link below to see what is free, and what isn't.You're welcome!

Nobody is entitled to free music downloads, just as much nobody is entitled to anyone buying their music. We should stop listening to records altogether and only organize acoustic jam sessions from now on for multiplying musical works is far too problematic for our society to handle like grown ups.

You don't steal a bus or the subway, but you can sneak on anyway. Isn't that illegal? This is the same thing, you're basically stealing something that isn't a physical object, but more of a service.

I as a musician I don't owe it to you, or to anyone else to share the music I've spent hours, weeks, months on writing, arranging, recording and finally producing it to give it away for free.

You can try to justify this how much you want, the fact still remains. If you're not ready to pay for it in the first place, then you're never going to ever. There are exceptions of course, but they are just exactly that. Exceptions.

Mind you, I have tons of stuff that I give away for free. I will even send a physical copy for the price of the shipping cost and to cover my own expenses (tapes, cd-r's, prints). Or you can just download it for free.

Just check the link below to see what is free, and what isn't.You're welcome!

First of all, don't even get me started on just how broken copyright laws are.

"You don't steal a bus or the subway, but you can sneak on anyway. Isn't that illegal? This is the same thing, you're basically stealing something that isn't a physical object, but more of a service."

This is a strawman. Downloading music for free is not the same as sneaking on a bus or a subway. This Freakonomics article explains it best: If a thief steals your car, he has it, and you don’t. But if someone illegally downloads your song, he has it — but so do you.

"I as a musician I don't owe it to you, or to anyone else to share the music I've spent hours, weeks, months on writing, arranging, recording and finally producing it to give it away for free."

And yet many bands do give their stuff away for free. Just look at Monomakh, or Katechon, or Iprit, or Cursed Altar, or Barrowlands, or Abyssal, or many other bands I can't remember. They all give their stuff away for free (or as a name-your-price download). Are you willing to condemn them? Do you believe they're misguided in some way?

"You can try to justify this how much you want, the fact still remains. If you're not ready to pay for it in the first place, then you're never going to ever. There are exceptions of course, but they are just exactly that. Exceptions."

I pirated Metallica's first four albums. I now have physical copies of their first four albums. I pirated Death's work. I now own physical copies of almost all their albums. (The only album I'm missing is Spiritual Healing.) I pirated Leviathan's music. I now own almost all their full-lengths. (The only one I'm missing is True Traitor, True Whore.) There are many other stories just like mine. When we're poor, we pirate. When we become financially stable, we buy physical copies of the albums we pirated. If you're truly concerned about money, a pirate and a lost customer who "goes without" look exactly the same. Being sanctimonious accomplishes nothing.

Here's some more food for thought. Eight years ago, this one guy on this one other metal forum said that piracy is killing metal. Nowadays, the metal scene is stronger than it ever was back in the 80s and 90s. How do you explain that?

Never mentioned stealing a car. Sneaking a ride on a bus, you don't steal the bus.

"And yet many bands do give their stuff away for free. Just look at Monomakh, or Katechon, or Iprit, or Cursed Altar, or Barrowlands, or Abyssal, or many other bands I can't remember. They all give their stuff away for free (or as a name-your-price download). Are you willing to condemn them? Do you believe they're misguided in some way?"

Did you perhaps miss that I also give away stuff for free? They choose to give away their stuff, others don't.Just as I choose to sell my latest work, and give all the previous away for free. See the use of words. I choose to do so.

I will admit to that I download stuff myself, but it's not because some "I am poor" excuse. I download, listen once, either buy or delete the files. We don't have that many record stores in Stockholm left, so I can't just go and listen to an album there.

I do believe in supporting the artist. But a line like this:"The reason why I download all my music is because I have more important things to spend my money on, like food.",gives me the impression that you don't spend a single dime on music.

It's justified though, food is always more important but not downloading that certain album won't kill you either.

All I wish for others is, to respect my wishes and not downloading whatever I have for sale. The least you can do is ask first. Maybe, just maybe I can arrange for something then.

And what scene exactly are you talking about? In general? The American? The local?

"If you're truly concerned about money, a pirate and a lost customer who "goes without" look exactly the same. Being sanctimonious accomplishes nothing."

Can that be applied to a physical object that no one wants to buy in a store? Is the store owner to think, "oh at least someone will use it now that it got stolen"?

Anyway, this is a discussion of personal opinions, you think it's ok to download for certain reasons and that's fine.

What can be done to reduce downloading/piracy/whatever you want to call it?

You obviously haven't been listening to a single word I said. You equate copyright to physical property, and that's a mistake. When you regard mere ideas as property, then people take the property rights of actual physical property less seriously, such as cars or houses. When you steal a candy bar or a car, then you've left somebody without something to eat or something to drive. If you pirate an album, no matter how much you insist it's theft, it's not theft. You know why? Because you still have your album. You're not making as much money as you want, but you have not suffered theft.

I will admit to that I download stuff myself, but it's not because some "I am poor" excuse. I download, listen once, either buy or delete the files. We don't have that many record stores in Stockholm left, so I can't just go and listen to an album there.

So you do download stuff illegally.

But you're against people downloading your stuff without your permission?

_________________

mjollnir wrote:

Noble Beast's debut album is way beyond MOST of what Priest did in the 80s.

I am not against anyone, I just don't like hearing bullshit excuses to why people download. At least someone could be honest and say: "I download because I can" or at least admit that it's wrong. Being poor is not an excuse.

But sure, it's mainly old demos and hard to get material. I don't have to download stuff that is available to listen for free. I live in Sweden, where Spotify is available. I can listen to most bands there.

I have two songs out of six available for you to listen online. I don't upload anymore because I want people to buy the cd. If you don't want to buy it, fine!

I'm going to end my part here, I've taken part in discussions like this before and it leads to nothing, because people only try to justify their own actions in every single way that they can.

I am not against anyone, I just don't like hearing bullshit excuses to why people download. At least someone could be honest and say: "I download because I can" or at least admit that it's wrong. Being poor is not an excuse.

But sure, it's mainly old demos and hard to get material. I don't have to download stuff that is available to listen for free. I live in Sweden, where Spotify is available. I can listen to most bands there.

I have two songs out of six available for you to listen online. I don't upload anymore because I want people to buy the cd. If you don't want to buy it, fine!

I'm going to end my part here, I've taken part in discussions like this before and it leads to nothing, because people only try to justify their own actions in every single way that they can.

I wasn't trying to trick you but I'm sure you can understand why your posts might have sparked some more questions.

To me, it sounds like you are doing something you don't want other people to do.

I guess I'm just trying to say, it's a very complex issue.

_________________

mjollnir wrote:

Noble Beast's debut album is way beyond MOST of what Priest did in the 80s.

Well, where would you get an original copy of Geddes Axe - Escape from New York?When I download I have a purpose, and it's not that I download something and then keep it. I give it a spin and if I like it, I will buy it, otherwise it's straight to the bin. It doesn't happen to often, since as I mentioned, most stuff is available for streaming online.

Of course it's a complex issue and there's no real solution to it, except for people supporting the artists they like.

I downloaded Amon Amarth-Surtur Rising when it first came out. I ended up buying the mp3 on amazon a few minutes ago, since its only $5(as is the newer cannibal corpse albums). If youve bought cd's there in the past, the digital albums are automatically put in the cloud player for free.That Morbid Angel remix album is $19! Thats completely ridiculous for so many reasons.

A long time ago, an extremely famous musician testified before congress that a new method of experiencing and distributing music surely would lead to the death of artistic expression, and possibly the death of artists themselves as they were deprived of their livelihoods.

This artist argued passionately that the copyright of the artist was being violated in an unprecedented fashion. People were experiencing music in new ways that did not involve any compensation to the artist. You can read a lot of what he though on the matter, most of it raving nonsense, here.

Anyone who bothered to click on the link now knows the punchline - the extremely famous musician was John Philip Souza, and the article linked above was published in 1906. He was railing against the very idea of recording music. His (completely incorrect) views have been used a lot in copyright lectures at universities all over the country. Also used a lot are the views of Jack Valenti, the former head of the MPAA. He railed against cable television in 1972 and against VCRs in 1982. (The US Supreme Court actually had to rule that VCRs were, in fact, legal.) This is a transcript of a pretty good lecture that has to do with the impossibility of controlling how people experience media.

Over and over again, literally since recording was invented, people have warned that new technology = artistic apocalypse. Everything is doomsday. People wouldn't even bother to learn to sing or play instruments anymore - if they wanted to experience music they would just listen to a recording. Concert halls would vanish from the landscape, since no one would have to go anymore - they could just get a gramophone. "Composer" would cease to be an occupation, since now amateurs could record practically anything cheaply - thus putting professionals out of business. Worst of all, this "fake" copy of a performance would negate utterly the need and desire to pay for music at all, since everyone in town could conceivably hear it for free after one guy bought a wax cylinder for a dime.

They're the old-timey versions of all the same arguments you hear today about digital music and file sharing, and they're STILL BULLSHIT.

It never happens. Not with recording, not with broadcasting, not with cable, not with VCRs, not with DVD players, not with ripping technology, not with MP3 players, and not with the internet. There's never an apocalypse. People never stop paying for artistic content, and the world never ends.

Exactly the opposite happens - there's a boom. In each case listed above, not long after the advent of the new technology, it's former opponents shut the fuck up. The doomsayers are always wrong. People still sing, people still play instruments. There are still concert halls. People still go to the movies and buy DVDs and CDs and companies still make money selling them. eBooks outsell paper book on Amazon. Apple makes billions by selling MP3s though iTunes, usually one at a time. On Bandcamp, albums outsell individual tracks. Business models died, art didn't.

Here's the mistake Souza and Valenti and everyone else made and continues to make - they assumed that the only reason people paid to experience their art was because they had to. There was no other way to do it. If you gave people a way to get the experience without the cost, they would jump at it.

That is 100% wrong, and will remain 100% wrong forever, no matter what technology is developed. That is because people do not patronize art because they have to. People patronize art because they want to.

There have always been people who will listen to everyone else's records and never buy their own. Or get all their music over the radio. Or make copies of a friend's CDs. Or download files using some file sharing application. Or scan fucking books for use on an e-reader. Yes, people do that.

It changes nothing. Those who do not want to patronize art never will, so they are not part of the question. Those who do want to patronize art always will, however. You cannot make someone want to patronize art, but you can make them not want to, for example by being an asshole, suing them, and calling them thieves. We are your audience, not your enemy.

@GTog: Finally, someone with some rationality has entered this thread! I agree with you 100%. The arguments used against file sharing are the same arguments used against the cassette tape and other technological advances. You remember back in the time when everyone thought the printing press would kill literature? Artists shouldn't see piracy as a threat, but as an opportunity. As Valve once put it, "pirates are merely underserved customers." What you should do is provide more than just music. You should also provide t-shirts or patches or buttons or other merch. You should try out better business models such as digital distribution be it through iTunes or Pandora or Spotify or many other such sites. Digital goods cost less to produce, therefore they should cost less to buy. What you shouldn't do is call people who can't afford to buy physical music "thieves" and claim they're "entitled" or whatnot.